Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxing the rich does not work?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 1:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.nj.com...

N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart?

I don't agree but I think that some dem and liberals here believe in this system.

So trickle down does not work.
Trickle up does not work.

What works?
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 1:53:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 1:09:40 PM, comoncents wrote:
http://www.nj.com...


N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart?

I don't agree but I think that some dem and liberals here believe in this system.

So trickle down does not work.
Trickle up does not work.

What works?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 2:49:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart?

Good for them.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 2:54:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Err..progressive tax works, so long as the scale it increases on is not huge.

Let's put it this way:

10% tax on $50,000 = $5,000. Compared to $50,000, that's a lot, specially for a household, leaving an excess of $45,000.

12% tax on $1,000,000 = $120,000. Compared to $1,000,000, it leaves $880,000.

I think the rich can afford a slightly greater tax rate.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 2:59:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can afford to buy the 99 cent bread instead of the 88 cent bread. But if they are made the same way and are the same amount, why the hell would I?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
drumminonastreetlight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 2:54:37 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Err..progressive tax works, so long as the scale it increases on is not huge.

Let's put it this way:

10% tax on $50,000 = $5,000. Compared to $50,000, that's a lot, specially for a household, leaving an excess of $45,000.

12% tax on $1,000,000 = $120,000. Compared to $1,000,000, it leaves $880,000.

I think the rich can afford a slightly greater tax rate.

Your right I think the owner of that popular pizza shop who spent 15 years building his business, taking the risks and putting stress on his family and is paying the bills for his sons college tuition in full should be giving more to the guy that dropped out of highschool, had 5 kids who are all receiving free tuition because he can afford it

Yeah thats fair
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:19:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Free Market
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:19:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:18:24 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 2:54:37 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Err..progressive tax works, so long as the scale it increases on is not huge.

Let's put it this way:

10% tax on $50,000 = $5,000. Compared to $50,000, that's a lot, specially for a household, leaving an excess of $45,000.

12% tax on $1,000,000 = $120,000. Compared to $1,000,000, it leaves $880,000.

I think the rich can afford a slightly greater tax rate.

Your right I think the owner of that popular pizza shop who spent 15 years building his business, taking the risks and putting stress on his family and is paying the bills for his sons college tuition in full should be giving more to the guy that dropped out of highschool, had 5 kids who are all receiving free tuition because he can afford it

Yeah thats fair

If one believes in a "free" education system up until and including college and the fact flat taxes raep hard working middle class families, then yes.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:21:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:19:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If one believes in a "free" education system up until and including college and the fact flat taxes raep hard working middle class families, then yes.

I favor a flat tax just like Ron Paul.

"I lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero."
--Ron Paul, Jay Leno show, Oct. 31, 2007.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:23:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:21:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:19:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If one believes in a "free" education system up until and including college and the fact flat taxes raep hard working middle class families, then yes.

I favor a flat tax just like Ron Paul.

"I lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero."
--Ron Paul, Jay Leno show, Oct. 31, 2007.

I favour reality, favour with a "u".
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
drumminonastreetlight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:23:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:19:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If one believes in a "free" education system up until and including college reap colleges that take advantage of the "free system" and cause tuition bills to rise incredibly and creates a reason for people who don't have the intelligences or drive to go to college an excuse to party on government money for 4 years and be highly overqualified for an assembly line then yes.

Wow
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:25:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:23:34 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:19:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If one believes in a "free" education system up until and including college reap colleges that take advantage of the "free system" and cause tuition bills to rise incredibly and creates a reason for people who don't have the intelligences or drive to go to college an excuse to party on government money for 4 years and be highly overqualified for an assembly line then yes.

Wow

Well put.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:26:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:23:34 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:19:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If one believes in a "free" education system up until and including college reap colleges that take advantage of the "free system" and cause tuition bills to rise incredibly and creates a reason for people who don't have the intelligences or drive to go to college an excuse to party on government money for 4 years and be highly overqualified for an assembly line then yes.

Wow

Lol, the system covers certain colleges. If you want a fancy private fee-paying colleges, they will still exist. Besides, those highly overqualified for the assembly line usually drop out. At any rate I don't advocate expanding the number of courses in an unnatural manner, just encourage people who are able to, but normally wouldn't due to economic difficulties, go to college to do so.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:27:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:23:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I favour reality, favour with a "u".

"Anti-libertarians, and anti-radicals generally, characteristically make the point that such abolitionism is "unrealistic"; by making such a charge they hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or "realism" enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself. We might agree, for example, on the goal of liberty and the desirability of abolitionism in liberty's behalf. But this does not mean that we believe that abolition will in fact be attainable in the near or far future." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:27:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:25:25 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:23:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I favor a reality that creates a giant waste of taxpayer dollars.

favor without a u bro

Lol, it generates income, how that is spent depends on the government, which may or may not make said money a waste,
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
drumminonastreetlight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:31:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:26:55 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Lol, the system covers certain colleges. If you want a fancy private fee-paying colleges, they will still exist. Besides, those highly overqualified for the assembly line usually drop out. At any rate I don't advocate expanding the number of courses in an unnatural manner, just encourage people who are able to, but normally wouldn't due to economic difficulties, go to college to do so.

That in no way refutes anything of value. Next time type in "in my plan the government plan will only pay for tuition money at a govt. college that will have a budget fully transparent to the govt and taxpayers. The tuition will only be covered if a students GPA is above 3.7 in gen ed courses and above a 3.5 in the major courses.

And I'll give it to you.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:31:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:26:55 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Lol, the system covers certain colleges. If you want a fancy private fee-paying colleges, they will still exist. Besides, those highly overqualified for the assembly line usually drop out. At any rate I don't advocate expanding the number of courses in an unnatural manner, just encourage people who are able to, but normally wouldn't due to economic difficulties, go to college to do so.

Forget about "free" college, they need to get rid of the government college loans.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
drumminonastreetlight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:32:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:27:40 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:25:25 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:23:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I favor a reality that creates a giant waste of taxpayer dollars.

favor without a u bro

Lol, buying 99 million lollipops generates income, how that is spent depends on the government, which may or may not make said money a waste,

lol wut
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:51:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:32:43 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:27:40 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:25:25 PM, drumminonastreetlight wrote:
At 2/5/2010 3:23:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I favor a reality that creates a giant waste of taxpayer dollars.

favor without a u bro

Lol, buying 99 million lollipops generates income, how that is spent depends on the government, which may or may not make said money a waste,

lol wut

Taxes generate income *facepalm*
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:55:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:51:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Taxes generate income *facepalm*

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
~Henry Hazlitt

You're only looking at the direct result of taxes. Try to look beyond.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 4:00:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:59:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
*sigh* @ libertarian onslaught. Where's Volkov when you need him?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:50:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 1:09:40 PM, comoncents wrote:
http://www.nj.com...


N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart?

I don't agree but I think that some dem and liberals here believe in this system.

So trickle down does not work.
Trickle up does not work.

What works?

If you believe getting rid of the deficit is a good thing, then repealing Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy should be a good thing, as should raising taxes on those best able to afford it.

You contradict yourself.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:57:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:50:21 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/5/2010 1:09:40 PM, comoncents wrote:
http://www.nj.com...


N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart?

I don't agree but I think that some dem and liberals here believe in this system.

So trickle down does not work.
Trickle up does not work.

What works?

If you believe getting rid of the deficit is a good thing, then repealing Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy should be a good thing, as should raising taxes on those best able to afford it.
Woah, you totally didn't read or understand post you were responding to. The whole point was that doing so causes rich people to move away.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 2:00:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:57:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Woah, you totally didn't read or understand post you were responding to. The whole point was that doing so causes rich people to move away.

Whoah, you totally didn't read or understand the post I made.

And yeah, I did read it and understood it is bogus in that it does not support the contention. Of course cheats will escape paying taxes. Its great to have an unpaid forced labor work force, which is why most of our production has been sent to China ... that doesn't mean it should be allowed nor encouraged.

And further, cutting taxes on the wealthy has been proven to increase deficits and do not improve employment.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 2:05:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 2:00:31 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Woah, you totally didn't read or understand post you were responding to. The whole point was that doing so causes rich people to move away.

Whoah, you totally didn't read or understand the post I made.
Woah, no, because obviously if they move away they aren't helping with the deficit eh?


And yeah, I did read it and understood it is bogus in that it does not support the contention.
You mean that it doesn't work?
"gee let's raise revenue by progressive taxes."
"Oh wait our source of revenue runs away. revenue gone."

Of course cheats will escape paying taxes.
Cheats?
If I buy linux am I cheating Microsoft?

Its great to have an unpaid forced labor work force, which is why most of our production has been sent to China
What does that have to do with the thread?
that doesn't mean it should be allowed
What are you going to do about it? Be like the soviet union and shoot emigrants? Even the UN calls that a human rights violation.

nor encouraged.
The tax code you just advocated encourages it.


And further, cutting taxes on the wealthy has been proven to increase deficits
How?

and do not improve employment.
How?

Note that controlled experiments are by definition impossible in economics so you'd better have a good deductive argument, since no other kind of proof is possible.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 2:19:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 2:05:43 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/8/2010 2:00:31 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Woah, you totally didn't read or understand post you were responding to. The whole point was that doing so causes rich people to move away.

Whoah, you totally didn't read or understand the post I made.
Woah, no, because obviously if they move away they aren't helping with the deficit eh?
Whoah, no, because obviously if they aren't being taxed, they aren't helping with the deficit either, eh?
And yeah, I did read it and understood it is bogus in that it does not support the contention.
You mean that it doesn't work?
"gee let's raise revenue by progressive taxes."
Your theory: "Let's raise revenue by cutting taxes on the wealthy."
"Oh wait our source of revenue runs away. revenue gone."
Of course cheats will escape paying taxes.
Cheats?
Offshoring, simply not paying taxes like Joe the tax-dodging Plumber got away with for far too long.

If I buy linux am I cheating Microsoft?
What does that have to do with anything?

Its great to have an unpaid forced labor work force, which is why most of our production has been sent to China
What does that have to do with the thread?
Simple: Charge tax, companies leave. Your solution: don't tax.
Ban slave labor, companies leave. Is your solution then to not ban slave labor?

that doesn't mean it should be allowed
What are you going to do about it? Be like the soviet union and shoot emigrants? Even the UN calls that a human rights violation.
No, ban them from doing business if they're dodging taxes.

nor encouraged.
The tax code you just advocated encourages it.
Nonsensical.

And further, cutting taxes on the wealthy has been proven to increase deficits
How?
You really can't understand how cutting tax income for the goverment contributes to a deficit?

Do you not understand that to pay bills, you need income?

and do not improve employment.
How?
It never has. Simple as that.

Note that controlled experiments are by definition impossible in economics so you'd better have a good deductive argument, since no other kind of proof is possible.

The wealthy pocket what they are given and hoarde it -- that's how they become wealthy. Unprecedented tax breaks were given to the wealthy under Bush and unemployment continued to climb.

Proof is not only possible, its there in history. Check the tax breaks and unemployment figures under Reagan and Dubya.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 2:30:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 2:19:45 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 2:05:43 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/8/2010 2:00:31 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Woah, you totally didn't read or understand post you were responding to. The whole point was that doing so causes rich people to move away.

Whoah, you totally didn't read or understand the post I made.
Woah, no, because obviously if they move away they aren't helping with the deficit eh?
Whoah, no, because obviously if they aren't being taxed, they aren't helping with the deficit either, eh?
If they're being taxed at the same rate as everyone else they are.
If they're being charged user fees at profit to the government they also are. :P

And yeah, I did read it and understood it is bogus in that it does not support the contention.
You mean that it doesn't work?
"gee let's raise revenue by progressive taxes."
Your theory: "Let's raise revenue by cutting taxes on the wealthy."
My theory is to raise revenue by user fees, but this thread isn't about my theory.

If I buy linux am I cheating Microsoft?
What does that have to do with anything?
What special rights of ownership in me does government have that Microsoft doesn't?


Its great to have an unpaid forced labor work force, which is why most of our production has been sent to China
What does that have to do with the thread?
Simple: Charge tax, companies leave.
Wait, what does that have to do with China?

Ban slave labor, companies leave. Is your solution then to not ban slave labor?
Yours is or you wouldn't advocate taxes (treating labourers as though you own them). But irrelevant, companies did not in fact leave when we banned slavery.


that doesn't mean it should be allowed
What are you going to do about it? Be like the soviet union and shoot emigrants? Even the UN calls that a human rights violation.
No, ban them from doing business if they're dodging taxes.
Meaningless, the whole point is they are LEAVING. How do you stop people who aren't in your country from doing business?


nor encouraged.
The tax code you just advocated encourages it.
Nonsensical.
Ipse dixet.


And further, cutting taxes on the wealthy has been proven to increase deficits
How?
You really can't understand how cutting tax income for the goverment contributes to a deficit?
Cutting tax rates and cutting income is a totally different story-- laffer curve. Incidentally it can be accompanied with larger spending cuts. And/or with introduction of user fees.

and do not improve employment.
How?
It never has. Simple as that.
Can you demonstrate this?


Note that controlled experiments are by definition impossible in economics so you'd better have a good deductive argument, since no other kind of proof is possible.

The wealthy pocket what they are given and hoarde it-- that's how they become wealthy. Unprecedented tax breaks were given to the wealthy
Incoherent. Tax breaks are stopping of theft, not a gift. Tax breaks can never alone explain wealth, it is impossible to tax at all if wealth is not already present.

under Bush and unemployment continued to climb.
Correlation does not equal causation. They start teaching this around middle school or so.


Proof is not only possible, its there in history.
See immediately above. History is eminently incapable of proving such things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 2:46:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 2:30:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If they're being taxed at the same rate as everyone else they are.
If they're being charged user fees at profit to the government they also are. :P

Its a simple fact that someone making $15,000 can ill afford 10% ($1,500) whereas someon making $1,500,000 can afford to pay a much higher percentage.

And the simple fact is, those who are getting paid more are /taking/ more.

Its great to have an unpaid forced labor work force, which is why most of our production has been sent to China
What does that have to do with the thread?
Simple: Charge tax, companies leave.
Wait, what does that have to do with China?

Ban slave labor, companies leave. Is your solution then to not ban slave labor?
Yours is or you wouldn't advocate taxes (treating labourers as though you own them). But irrelevant, companies did not in fact leave when we banned slavery.

Yes, they have -- at least, moved their production to slavery-friendly places like China. Every very hard-fought worker protection, the emancipation proclamation and environmental law has been bypassed by exporting production to countries that have little or no protection.

Should American companies be allowed to circumvent American laws by moving operations overseas, the same as circumventing laws against torture by torturing prisoners overseas?

that doesn't mean it should be allowed
What are you going to do about it? Be like the soviet union and shoot emigrants? Even the UN calls that a human rights violation.
No, ban them from doing business if they're dodging taxes.
Meaningless, the whole point is they are LEAVING. How do you stop people who aren't in your country from doing business?

Simple: Ban their products from here, or at last place heavy tariffs on them.

And further, cutting taxes on the wealthy has been proven to increase deficits
How?
You really can't understand how cutting tax income for the goverment contributes to a deficit?
Cutting tax rates and cutting income is a totally different story-- laffer curve.

Ummm, hate to break it to you, but taxes are the government's income.

Incidentally it can be accompanied with larger spending cuts. And/or with introduction of user fees.

We already have inadequate maintenance on health care for our citizens, maintenance of our national infrastructure (highways, bridges, etc.) Leaving everyone high and dry on their own isn't the answer.

A government is supposed to look out for the well-being of its people, not merely help wealth concentrate in the few. They don't have to give up all their wealth, but they should pay a share of how much they have taken from so many others.

and do not improve employment.
How?
It never has. Simple as that.
Can you demonstrate this?

Can I demonstrate how something has never worked?

That's a ridiculous question to asked. Can I demonstrate how nothing has ever fallen upward?

Note that controlled experiments are by definition impossible in economics so you'd better have a good deductive argument, since no other kind of proof is possible.

The wealthy pocket what they are given and hoarde it-- that's how they become wealthy. Unprecedented tax breaks were given to the wealthy
Incoherent. Tax breaks are stopping of theft,

They most certainly are not. The wealthy thieve their wealth by taking more than they give.

not a gift. Tax breaks can never alone explain wealth, it is impossible to tax at all if wealth is not already present.
False, out entire monetary system -- our very currency -- was created by and is managed by our government. An educated workforce, roads for workers to work and to ship product, public infrastructure ... so many things businesses take for granted are provided by the government.

under Bush and unemployment continued to climb.
Correlation does not equal causation. They start teaching this around middle school or so.

Effect follows cause, that they did teach starting around junior high.

Proof is not only possible, its there in history.
See immediately above. History is eminently incapable of proving such things.

See, that's where you lose credibility -- just because it happened in real life doesn't mean that's actually how it happens?

There is absolutely no means of proving anything without real-world examples.